On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:43 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:22 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 14:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> >> Register the memory devices described in the nfit as libnd 'dimm'
>> >> >> devices on an nd bus. The kernel assigned device id for dimms is
>> >> >> dynamic. If userspace needs a more static identifier it should consult
>> >> >> a provider-specific attribute. In the case where NFIT is the provider,
>> >> >> the 'nmemX/nfit/handle' or 'nmemX/nfit/serial' attributes may be used
>> >> >> for this purpose.
>> >> > :
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +static int nd_acpi_register_dimms(struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc)
>> >> >> +{
>> >> >> + struct nfit_mem *nfit_mem;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + list_for_each_entry(nfit_mem, &acpi_desc->dimms, list) {
>> >> >> + struct nd_dimm *nd_dimm;
>> >> >> + unsigned long flags = 0;
>> >> >> + u32 nfit_handle;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + nfit_handle = __to_nfit_memdev(nfit_mem)->nfit_handle;
>> >> >> + nd_dimm = nd_acpi_dimm_by_handle(acpi_desc, nfit_handle);
>> >> >> + if (nd_dimm) {
>> >> >> + /*
>> >> >> + * If for some reason we find multiple DCRs the
>> >> >> + * first one wins
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + dev_err(acpi_desc->dev, "duplicate DCR detected: %s\n",
>> >> >> + nd_dimm_name(nd_dimm));
>> >> >> + continue;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (nfit_mem->bdw && nfit_mem->memdev_pmem)
>> >> >> + flags |= NDD_ALIASING;
>> >> >
>> >> > Does this check work for a NVDIMM card which has multiple pmem regions
>> >> > with label info, but does not have any bdw region configured?
>> >>
>> >> If you have multiple pmem regions then you don't have aliasing and
>> >> don't need a label. You'll get an nd_namespace_io per region.
>> >>
>> >> > The code assumes that namespace_pmem (NDD_ALIASING) and namespace_blk
>> >> > have label info. There may be an NVDIMM card with a single blk region
>> >> > without label info.
>> >>
>> >> I'd really like to suggest that labels are only for resolving aliasing
>> >> and that if you have a BLK-only NVDIMM you'll get an automatic
>> >> namespace created the same as a PMEM-only. Partitioning is always
>> >> there to provide sub-divisions of a namespace. The only reason to
>> >> support multiple BLK-namespaces per-region is to give each a different
>> >> sector size. I may eventually need to relent on this position, but
>> >> I'd really like to understand the use case for requiring labels when
>> >> aliasing is not present as it seems like a waste to me.
>> >
>> > By looking at the callers of is_namespace_pmem() and is_namespace_blk(),
>> > such as nd_namespace_label_update(), I am concerned that the namespace
>> > types are also used for indicating the presence a label. Is it OK for
>> > nd_namespace_label_update() to do nothing when there is no aliasing?
>
> Did you forget to answer this question? I am not asking to have a
> label. I am asking if the namespace types can handle it correctly.
> Restating the nd_namespace_label_update() example:
> - namespace_io case: Skip, but a label may still exist. Correct?
> - namespace_blk case: Proceed, but blk does not require a label.
Ah, ok. This is handled by nd_namespace_attr_visible() only labelled
namespaces have writable sysfs attributes. This would need to be
extended for a label-less BLK namespace type.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
